T K SUNDARARAMAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the second respondent dated 10.10.2000 as confirmed by the first respondent by his order dated 16.07.2001. By the impugned orders, the petitioner, who was the Superintendent of the respondent-Board, was imposed with a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board.

(3.) FIRSTLY, it has to be seen that there is no allegation of any mis-appropriation or any deliberate attempt to mislead the higher authority in furnishing any information by the petitioner. However, the petitioner was able to substantiate before the Enquiry Officer that in respect of a similar case of one C.Subramanian, who was also an Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), the Chairman alone had framed the charges. That apart, the petitioner relying upon clause 8 (f) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Board, stated that when the competent authority is the Chairman to initiate proceedings by framing charges, the contentions raised by the petitioner was found acceptable to the Enquiry Officer and accordingly, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges are not proved. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the Enquiry Officer's report, the operative portion of which, reads as follows: